What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[forehead7]

I've already spoke to someone, maybe forehead, about 21 Jump St on here.

You really do need to see it. Like Dom Dom says, i was howling with laughter throughout.

It may well have been, I caught it at the tail end of last year. It's absolute quality, even after one viewing I can tell it's going to be one of my favourite comedies.

[Christophe]

Cloud Atlas 3/10

Tedious bollocks. Faux profound/pretentious rubbish.

[Christophe]

Wreck It Ralph 8/10

Yet another American CGI cartoon that dances itself into a corner trying to mix the standard aspirational meme with the standard reactionary undercurrent of knowing thy place and staying put (which is, to be fair, actually a plot function in this one). Manages a better job of balancing that than most, though, and throws in even more videogame references than Scott Pilgrim managed, which is definitely a plus.

[yoda]

I watched Unstoppable the other night. I didn't like it, the characters were dull, there was no tension and it was really poorly shot. 4/10

Arbitrage

I saw this at an Unlimited screening in Cineworld. I stumbled across the trailer a few weeks ago and it really grabbed my interest.

Robert Miller (Gere) is, on the surface at least, an excellent businessman. He's a multi-millionaire, has a great family life and is an American icon really. This, as is revealed early on, is a facade and the many threads in his life begin to tangle as he desperately tries to keep up the illusion shown at the start of the film.

Richard Gere puts in a performance that is up there with his best: he plays a character that is so utterly loathsome but you don't want to hate him. Tim Roth almost verges into chewing up the scenery territory but he pulls off a good performance as a police officer who has many similarities to Gere's character despite the obvious differences. The lahvely Brit Marling has an uncanny resemblance to Ivanka Trump in both appearance and her role as Miller's daughter, the CIO of her father's company. Susan Sarandon does what is required and Nate Parker does a decent job as well. Basically the whole cast to themselves justice (and I was pleased to see the fantastic Norman Wilson from The Wire make an appearance).

The dialogue is the best thing about this film though. I found it to be very well written and this is a thriller that replaces action with words, and it works very well. There's a very "Nolan" ending which appealed to me.

I don't think there's anything technical to gush over but I did find the apparent lack of artificial lighting (which you will notice) gave the film quite a realistic feel.

Ultimately I found it to be a very enjoyable and well written thriller.

7.5/10

( B+ / A- )

[jester]

ARGO

Finally saw this on Saturday. Gripping, tense, funny and wonderfully shot. Brilliant stuff from John Goodman as usual. I loved the shots of the plane landing in Tehran. THAT's what a big screen is for!

Watch out for the stuff hidden amongst the credits at the end. As we headed out we heard speaking and I think just about everyone stopped and stood watching until that had finished.

10/10

[The OP]

Was just about to review Argo which I also just got around to seeing (last night). I'd give it 8/10. Excellent tense thriller about an operation which I wasn't too familiar with, and which admirably got results without going in and blasting everyone in sight.

It was very well made and I particularly enjoyed the scene where they are reading from the script at the fake film promotion, interspersed with speeches from Iran and the White House about the ongoing hostage situation. The scene at the airport at the end also worked very well, keeping the tension rising despite it being fairly obvious how it was all going to pan out in the end (what with it being a film about the freeing of Iranian hostages).

The main drawbacks for me were I felt they kind of underplayed the Canadian contribution and the fact that the Shah of Iran was a bit of a c**t, and I could've done without the very end with the flapping American flag when Ben Affleck goes to see his son. Another very minor complaint is that some of the self-referential and self-deprecating jokes about film-makers were a bit cheesy.

Really though, an excellent and engaging film, very well-made, but I don't see myself ever watching it again.

I tried Les Miserables but failed to finish it. It was quite impressive looking, although the unreal grandeur they went for is not something I'm particularly into. I'm not sure if my main problem was that it was melodramatic and bombastic and every other '-tic' I can't be arsed with, or if it was simply because they wouldn't stop bloody singing. N/A

[Co.Down Hibee]

I tried Les Miserables but failed to finish it. It was quite impressive looking, although the unreal grandeur they went for is not something I'm particularly into. I'm not sure if my main problem was that it was melodramatic and bombastic and every other '-tic' I can't be arsed with, or if it was simply because they wouldn't stop bloody singing. N/A

i went along to see Les Mis and although I thought it was pretty good I can't help thinking did they have to actually sing? the storyline and performances would have been just as good without the singing, maybe it just isn't my thing really.

[yoda]

It's a musical. Singing is necessary.

[Albino Rover]

I think the film worked the way it is (although not to the extent of some posters on here) but it was a book long before it was a musical. I'd love to see a genuine drama, less glammed up and without singing, that's truer to the book (partly to save me reading the thing).

[yoda]

I watched the 1998 Les Miserables the other day (stumbled upon it while channel hopping). It's not a musical but isn't particularly faithful to the novel. I didn't really enjoy it but the cast was impressive (Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman, Geoffrey Rush, and Claire Danes).

[Daviehaybhoy]

I watched the 1998 Les Miserables the other day (stumbled upon it while channel hopping). It's not a musical but isn't particularly faithful to the novel. I didn't really enjoy it but the cast was impressive (Liam Neeson, Uma Thurman, Geoffrey Rush, and Claire Danes).

I loved it. Rush was superb.

The central theme of forgiveness and starting life again was a particularly Catholic Christian theme.

[Albino Rover]

I'd heard that film was utter gash so have avoided it. It's sort of what I'm getting at, though. One major drawback of making something true to the book is that would have to be a real epic, like 4+ hours. Tom Hooper apparently originally wanted his Les Misérables to be like that but understandably the producers didn't like it.

[Christophe]

Flight of the Navigator

Set in the 1980s a post-modern critique on the nature of adulthood - heavily stylised to look like it was made in the past. A kind of meta comment on the nature of the film. A high-concept art film playing with irony and cultural references youngsters today would not get, so it certainly plays to a niche audience. Although tired at points, there are a few thrills to be had. I liked the little animal that screeched.

6/10

[DomDom]

Frankenweenie ( 2012 )

Is there even any point watching a Tim Burton movie these days? This one started promising enough, and managed to fool me into thinking this would be better than recent efforts, but true to form, it turns into a tedious movie soon enough. There's a bit of charm to this one at least which makes the running time roll in much easier I guess, and the final twist really is an absolute cracker. He really is the most boring filmmaker going right now however, and this movie only adds to that.

4/10

Don't even ask where the initial 6 came from. That was a hell on earth level typo.

Edited February 26, 2013 by DomDom

[forehead7]

A Good Day To Die Hard

To be honest, I quite enjoyed this. Don't get me wrong, it's nowhere near the standard of the first three and is worse than 4.0 but still enjoyable. I was expecting a lot worse so maybe that was why this seemed good. I also thought the 12A rating would be very noticeable but compared to, say, something like Taken 2, it wasn't that big of an issue. I would like to American version (it's rated "R" which is like a 15, I think).

6/10

[captainkev]

Cloud Atlas:

I thought it was a wonderful film. Stupidly ambitious, I really haven't ever seen anything quite like this from Hollywood before, hell a review I just read could only come up with D.W. Griffith's 1916 film Intolerance to compare to it. Ultimately I felt the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer pulled it off. I'll say straight off the bat, I haven't read the original novel it's based on. In fact, on the advice of an American film reviewer, I made an effort to try and know as little about the film as possible before I went to see it. As a result I didn't even know it was adapated from a novel before it came out.

I love that this film has the audacity to set out it's stall from the opening few minutes. It's slightly bewhildering but we're expected to actually think and keep up with it which is refreshing for a Hollywood blockbuster in this day an age.

I will try to spoil as little as possible so if you are attempting to do as I did and go into the film almost completely ignorant then best stop reading now. This film must have been a nightmare to edit, the stories all weave in and out of each other and some of the little connections between the stories that have come from the editing can be delightful.

For example in one story, Jim Broadbent's character narrates he wishes he had the courage to go knock on the door to speak to Susan Sarandon's character. The film then switches to a scene from another story where the door is opened by a different character played by Sarandon.

The ensemble cast put in a variety of good performances. I can't say I felt anyone of the main actors really let the team down. Hugh Grant is probably the weakest if I'm brutually honest but he apparently did get on board at the last minute and didn't have as much time to prepare. And he certainly isn't bad by any means but the British press have seemed to latched onto him in particular when having a go at this.

For the all the bitching and moaning that gets thrown CGI's way, this film is the antidote to that. It's heavily present in this film but it's not done out of sheer laziness, it's used to come up with visuals that would be impossible to see without CGI.

This film is three hours long and when I came out the cinema I wanted to see it again. I intend to watch this film multiple times but off the back of just one viewing I give this film a 10/10.

Go see this film, it deserves to have a large audience. If your still undecided about it then consider this. The Daily Mail (*spit) review described it as "A super colossal FLOP". The fact that the reviewer for the Daily Mail (*spit) thought it was a flop is a far better reccommendation than I will ever be to provide so go see it!

Edited February 27, 2013 by captainkev

[Christophe]

Bullhead - 8/10. Good.

No - 7.5/10. Quite good.

Lore - 8.5/10. Very good.

[Smurph]

Wanderlust.<br /><br />Put ma DIYYYCKKJ in yo VAAAAHGGG.<br /><br />6.5/10. Pretty funny.in parts.

[spud131]

Bullhead - 8/10. Good.

No - 7.5/10. Quite good.

Lore - 8.5/10. Very good.

Where about did you see 'No', I quite fancy it but can't see it on any of the Glasgow cinemas?

[Christophe]

Where about did you see 'No', I quite fancy it but can't see it on any of the Glasgow cinemas?

Cameo in Edinburgh